Attila Era Warfare?

[Remo]

Now I know my Ancient era warfare(Up until late Iron Age, IE. the era of Attila), I know my Early/Late Medieval warfare, I know Renaissance and everything past that. But I don't know SQUAT about this eras strategy and tactics.

With the inclusion of so many barbarians in the Western Roman Empires armies, and the amount of "Barbarian" tribes all over the place, all I can gather is that they just sent a ton of armored dudes into another ton of armored dudes and nothing more than simple flanking when possible.

I mean was there special Formations, Strategies and Tactics? There have to be some history buffs out there that can ramble on about this and enjoy doing it.

Actually I think that's why this game isn't keeping my attention as much as Rome 2 did, in the Ancient era there were so many different fighting styles and armies, everything was interesting, Pikemen/Hoplites of Greece, Horsemen of Parthia, Baktria had a weird combination of both, Romans had these awesome meat grinding armies, Egyptians had this awesome mixture of everything as did Seleucids. Barbarians were rough a tough fighters with a knack for ambushes and getting in the face of the enemy, Iberians were great horsemen.

Everyone was unique, but Attila is just *Bash Bash Clash woop woop woopty dooooo* *Dead*, VICTORY!

Well I just answered the question of my OTHER thread, is there anyone who can fill me in Historically what it was like?

[Hresvelgr]

The Romans were just as sophisticated in this era as before, if not moreso. The "barbarization" of the army is a myth, there was a big increase in the number of non-Romans in the army but they received just as much training as anyone else, some of Rome's best generals at this time had "barbarian" heritage and yet were the equals of the best early imperial and republican commanders. The Germanic peoples for their part became tougher opponents, using more complicated and sophisticated tactics and equipment than ever before and forming the kingdoms that would become the basis of what is now western civilization. The Parthians in the east were replaced by a Persian dynasty that became more powerful than the Parthians ever were. And of course you had nomadic peoples like the Huns coming from the east with their horse-archery tactics that the Romans borrowed, as usual given that the Roman army was consistently adopting every good idea made by people they derided as barbaric since their founding.

[Remo]

The Romans were just as sophisticated in this era as before, if not moreso. The "barbarization" of the army is a myth, there was a big increase in the number of non-Romans in the army but they received just as much training as anyone else, some of Rome's best generals at this time had "barbarian" heritage and yet were the equals of the best early imperial and republican commanders. The Germanic peoples for their part became tougher opponents, using more complicated and sophisticated tactics and equipment than ever before and forming the kingdoms that would become the basis of what is now western civilization. The Parthians in the east were replaced by a Persian dynasty that became more powerful than the Parthians ever were. And of course you had nomadic peoples like the Huns coming from the east with their horse-archery tactics that the Romans borrowed, as usual given that the Roman army was consistently adopting every good idea made by people they derided as barbaric since their founding.

Ok I get all of that, thanks for the info, but was it just Lines of men clashing with eachother, or was there deep strategy involved in battles?

[the lightning legion]

the Romans borrowed, as usual given that the Roman army was consistently adopting every good idea made by people they derided as barbaric since their founding.

its right to learn, even from the enemy.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There was. I highly recommend reading Maurice's Strategikon, it's the only complete surviving Roman military manual (other than later versions by later "Byzantine" Emperors).

The freely available article "The Fulcum" by Phillip Rance can readily be found online.

https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

[Remo]

There was. I highly recommend reading Maurice's Strategikon, it's the only complete surviving Roman military manual (other than later versions by later "Byzantine" Emperors).

The freely available article "The Fulcum" by Phillip Rance can readily be found online.

https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted, thanks so much Flavius!

[hellheaven1987]

There was. I highly recommend reading Maurice's Strategikon, it's the only complete surviving Roman military manual (other than later versions by later "Byzantine" Emperors).

It was written in 7th Century however; Luttwak argued that the pressure of Huns had forced ERE to go through another period of military reform around early 6th Century that saw the change of late Roman warfare into early Byzantine warfare.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It was written in 7th Century however; Luttwak argued that the pressure of Huns had forced ERE to go through another period of military reform around early 6th Century that saw the change of late Roman warfare into early Byzantine warfare.

Hunnic pressure had been around since the late 4th century, and frankly the formation of the army in the Strategikon is basically the same as it is in the Notitia, Ammianus, Vegetius, and the De Rebus Bellicis, but with different regiment structure and a shift towards Greek.

The reform the Huns made to the "Byzantine" military was Lance and Bow warfare, but the Western Romans had this too, they adopted it via their Alan allies and recruits.

[Charerg]

In a previous thread concerning pike units I had a bit of a discussion concerning the spear lengths of late Roman/early Byzantine spears with Anthonius II. Here is the relevant quote:

Writing about weapons we always forget History itself!
I explain..Emperor Maurice (Maurikios) re- equiped his infantrymen with the 3m Kontarion...
Because "lance" was the basic spear of Romans and it had only 2m legth...
Kontos was the name of cavalrymen but it seems that infantry did not used it!
Why? Because stire ups were NOT in use untill 6th century and Kontos was a baboo made long spear. That made it light enough to be carried by horsemen but useless for infantrymen!
Maurice was a "soldier" so he may knew something better that us that we write about eras close to his trying to convince our selves and others that we know more for those people than they did!
Conclusion! The basic infantry "spear" was only 2m long. No pikes or other such imaginary and fantasy weapons! What will be next from pikes , light swords???
Pikes -in the shape of kontarion makron- had to wait untill middle of 10th century to re-apear! In west europe pikes had to wait early 16th century to be used again!!

So my question would be that is Anthonius' analysis of the Strategikon accurate? I've been unable to find the text on the internet, so I can't verify this, but if you have access to the Strategikon, I'd be very interested if it does indeed specify spear lengths as 3 metres, or if it even describes a military reform.

The "Fulcum" document made it clear that the late Roman spear (Lancea?) was used as both a short range javelin and a thrusting spear depending on the circumstances. However the Greek text quoted in the "Fulcum" document uses the term "kontarion" to describe these spears. Were there separate "dual-purpose" (lancea or longche) and "dedicated thrusting" spears (dory or hasta) in use by the late Romans or was there only a single "generic spear" type?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

So my question would be that is Anthonius' analysis of the Strategikon accurate? I've been unable to find the text on the internet, so I can't verify this, but if you have access to the Strategikon, I'd be very interested if it does indeed specify spear lengths as 3 metres, or if it even describes a military reform.

3m spears came into use in the 3rd century AD, and it was called a Contus. But these were not pikes: the Sarissa was 9-10 meters, not 3. A Contus is just a long spear.

The "Fulcum" document made it clear that the late Roman spear (Lancea?) was used as both a short range javelin and a thrusting spear depending on the circumstances. However the Greek text quoted in the "Fulcum" document uses the term "kontarion" to describe these spears. Were there separate "dual-purpose" (lancea or longche) and "dedicated thrusting" spears (dory or hasta) in use by the late Romans or was there only a single "generic spear" type?

Depends on what kind of spear. The Spiculum was a short-range heavy javelin like its predecessor the pilum, about 2 meters in length. The Lancaea and Verrutum were both light javelins about a meter in length. The contus was an 8 foot (10 foot for cavalry) thrusting spear.

The Contus was not a throwing spear, although I guess you could throw it if you had to. The Spiculum was dual purpose, and was throwing and thrusting when necessary.

[Ecthelion]

The Cliff Notes version is that the army became more and more professional as cavalry played a larger role, in particular, horse archery.

The quintessential Byzantine trooper is the armored cavalryman with bow, lance and sword (or axe/mace).

The heavy infantry still existed but used spear and shield wall tactics similar to the Germanic style.

The overall operational doctrine was to avoid high risk decisive battles. Defeat at the hands of a cavalry heavy opponent meant the effective annihilation of the entire field army, a catastrophic loss that could not be replaced for years, if at all.

This is an effective reversal of the previous early Imperial doctrine of seeking pitched battle and then destroying the enemy in a brutal infantry meat grinder of an engagement.

[Charerg]

The Cliff Notes version is that the army became more and more professional as cavalry played a larger role, in particular, horse archery.

The quintessential Byzantine trooper is the armored cavalryman with bow, lance and sword (or axe/mace).

The heavy infantry still existed but used spear and shield wall tactics similar to the Germanic style.

The overall operational doctrine was to avoid high risk decisive battles. Defeat at the hands of a cavalry heavy opponent meant the effective annihilation of the entire field army, a catastrophic loss that could not be replaced for years, if at all.

This is an effective reversal of the previous early Imperial doctrine of seeking pitched battle and then destroying the enemy in a brutal infantry meat grinder of an engagement.

I am not sure if I would take such a generalist view on Byzantine era warfare. After all, the Empire fought several aggressive wars, and Theme system effectively revived the Roman army as a predominantly "citizen militia". It was only during the Middle Ages that the Byzantine Army became increasingly reliant on various mercenary contingents (often of foreign origin).

I guess the bottom line is that the Byzantine army was a complex beast that undervent several reforms during its long history and I'd be wary of assuming such simplistic views concerning it strategy or the dominance of cavalry (the Byzantines relied on a strong infantry tradition fairly often).

[Ecthelion]

I am not sure if I would take such a generalist view on Byzantine era warfare. After all, the Empire fought several aggressive wars, and Theme system effectively revived the Roman army as a predominantly "citizen militia". It was only during the Middle Ages that the Byzantine Army became increasingly reliant on various mercenary contingents (often of foreign origin).

I guess the bottom line is that the Byzantine army was a complex beast that undervent several reforms during its long history and I'd be wary of assuming such simplistic views concerning it strategy or the dominance of cavalry (the Byzantines relied on a strong infantry tradition fairly often).

While you are correct that the bulk of the infantry and light cavalry in the theme system were levied only in times of need. They were far from being simple militia. These were professionals who also had another profession in farming or crafts. And let's also not forget the heavy cavalry which was almost all full time professional. The hereditary nature of the Theme armies meant that sons were trained from an early age to fight in the family tradition, so if a soldier died without issue, then that family line and tradition is lost.

It was a very well thought out and effective system, getting the local native population to look to their own defenses once more rather than relying on a professional army of foreigners and non-Romans.

[Charerg]

So the spears (kontarion) described in the Strategikon excerpt were of the Contus/Kontarion type. Because if I'm reading the text (Rance, not Strategikon) correctly, three scenarios were offered concerning the use of these and related weaponry in the text:

First, against infantry:

1. If the soldiers carried Matriobarbuli (Plumbatae), the spears were fixed to the ground (I'm assuming they had a "butt-spike" but if someone more knowledgeable can tell whether or not this was the case that would be great) while the front ranks threw their missiles.

2. If such projectiles were unavailable, the front ranks threw their spears and drew their spathae before the charge (this would imply that javelin-like usage of these spears was fairly common)

Once the front ranks were engaged, the rear ranks would assist by throwing their spears overhead.

And against cavalry:
3. The first two ranks brace their spears against the ground and overlap their shields (first rank kneels, second stoops and holds their shields above those of the first rank, forming a sloping shield wall). Third and Fourth rank hold their shields over their heads and hold their spears "as if they were javelins" (ie. overarm), either stabbing with them or throwing them (again, regular use of throwing the spear is implied).

The relevant quote from the Strategikon for case 3:

"τόν δέ τρίτον, ώς ύψηλότερον έστωτα, καί τόν τετάρτον κατέχονας ώς έπι άκοντίων τά κοντάρια, ότε μέν κατακεντάν τούς έγγίζοντας, ότε δέ καί έπιλαμβάνεσθαι τών σπαθίων"

"The third man, standing more upright, and the fourth, holding their spears like javelins either stab those coming close or hurl them and draw their swords."


EDIT: Btw, what is the source for the 3m spears (concerning their length)? Is this based on archaeological deposits from Denmark (Illerup and Nydam) or is there a textual reference specifying the spear length?
Also, I'm quite sure the Sarissa ranged from 4.5 to 5.5 metres in length, not 9-10.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

They did have a butt-spike.

1. If the soldiers carried Matriobarbuli (Plumbatae), the spears were fixed to the ground (I'm assuming they had a "butt-spike" but if someone more knowledgeable can tell whether or not this was the case that would be great) while the front ranks threw their missiles.

2. If such projectiles were unavailable, the front ranks threw their spears and drew their spathae before the charge (this would imply that javelin-like usage of these spears was fairly common)

Once the front ranks were engaged, the rear ranks would assist by throwing their spears overhead.

Yeah you stick it in the ground, throw your missiles, and pick it back up and use it.

The rear ranks were not armed with spears but armed with light javelins, bows, crossbows, and Plumbatae. The Romans deployed usually in 3 ranks heavy infantry, 4 ranks skirmishers, 1 rank heavy infantry. Although they mixed that up a bit. This is also detailed in the Strategikon.

And against cavalry:
3. The first two ranks brace their spears against the ground and overlap their shields (first rank kneels, second stoops and holds their shields above those of the first rank, forming a sloping shield wall). Third and Fourth rank hold their shields over their heads and hold their spears "as if they were javelins" (ie. overarm), either stabbing with them or throwing them (again, regular use of throwing the spear is implied).

This is called the Fulcum and is not just for use against Cavalry, the Roman army did this all the time against pretty much any enemy.

Btw, what is the source for the 3m spears (concerning their length)? Is this based on archaeological deposits from Denmark (Illerup and Nydam) or is there a textual reference specifying the spear length?

There have been plenty of javelins and spears found at Nydam, Illerup, and Thorsberg-Mose.

[Charerg]

There have been plenty of javelins and spears found at Nydam, Illerup, and Thorsberg-Mose.

The finds from Nydam and Illerup are probably of Germanic origin, right? The sites are in Denmark after all, a bit off from Roman territory. Not to say that the Romans and the Germans couldn't use similar spears, and of course any such direct archaeological evidence is much better than speculating on spear lengths based on artistic illustrations.

However, I don't believe the evidence I'm aware of favours spears as longs as 3 metres. These would be exceptionally long for 1-handed spears.

And to reiterate my earlier post concerning the said evidence:

The Classical Dory is usually thought as 2.1-2.4 metres long. This seem somewhat confirmed by the archaeological record, as the remains of a 2.2m Dory have been recovered from a tomb (according to Osprey's Warrior: Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC).

According to a post from myarmoury.com, the survivng shafts from Nydam ranged between 2.54 and 3.54 metres (diameter usually 2.6cm).
Also, according to a well-quoted post from RomanArmyTalk, the finds from Illerup measure between 2.23 and 2.74 metres.

According to Wikipedia, the Nydam finds are from 200 to 400 AD and the Illerup finds from 200 to 500 AD. So I guess it's highly possible that Germanic and Roman equipment somewhat mirrored each other during this period, and that the Danish finds indeed reflect practice within the Roman Empire.

However, it is interesting to compare these finds that indicate the spears used (at least the preserved ones) were clearly designed as thrusting spears, and compare this to Tacitus' account in Germania (ca. 100 AD):

Even iron is not plentiful with them, as we infer from the character of their weapons. But few use swords or long lances. They carry a spear [hasta] (framea is their name for it), with a narrow and short head, but so sharp and easy to wield that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield and spear; the foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak.

- From Wikipedia; Tacitus (Germania 6)

[hellheaven1987]

The Classical Dory is usually thought as 2.1-2.4 metres long. This seem somewhat confirmed by the archaeological record, as the remains of a 2.2m Dory have been recovered from a tomb (according to Osprey's Warrior: Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC).

I am pretty sure it was somewhere around 2.5~3.0 meters.

[Charerg]

I am pretty sure it was somewhere around 2.5~3.0 meters.

Do you have an actual source for this?
As far as I know the aforementioned 2.2 metre piece is the only surviving example. Is there an actual literal source claiming 2.5-3.0 metre length or is this just some crap somebody wrote in wikipedia?

PS. Just checked the wikipedia article about hoplites, and it claims the dory was 2.4-4.5 metres....no sources provided of course, as this is pure nonsense.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The finds from Nydam and Illerup are probably of Germanic origin, right? The sites are in Denmark after all, a bit off from Roman territory. Not to say that the Romans and the Germans couldn't use similar spears, and of course any such direct archaeological evidence is much better than speculating on spear lengths based on artistic illustrations.

However, I don't believe the evidence I'm aware of favours spears as longs as 3 metres. These would be exceptionally long for 1-handed spears.

And to reiterate my earlier post concerning the said evidence:

The Classical Dory is usually thought as 2.1-2.4 metres long. This seem somewhat confirmed by the archaeological record, as the remains of a 2.2m Dory have been recovered from a tomb (according to Osprey's Warrior: Greek Hoplite 480-323 BC).

According to a post from myarmoury.com, the survivng shafts from Nydam ranged between 2.54 and 3.54 metres (diameter usually 2.6cm).
Also, according to a well-quoted post from RomanArmyTalk, the finds from Illerup measure between 2.23 and 2.74 metres.

According to Wikipedia, the Nydam finds are from 200 to 400 AD and the Illerup finds from 200 to 500 AD. So I guess it's highly possible that Germanic and Roman equipment somewhat mirrored each other during this period, and that the Danish finds indeed reflect practice within the Roman Empire.

However, it is interesting to compare these finds that indicate the spears used (at least the preserved ones) were clearly designed as thrusting spears, and compare this to Tacitus' account in Germania (ca. 100 AD):

Even iron is not plentiful with them, as we infer from the character of their weapons. But few use swords or long lances. They carry a spear [hasta] (framea is their name for it), with a narrow and short head, but so sharp and easy to wield that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield and spear; the foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak.

- From Wikipedia; Tacitus (Germania 6)

A lot of it is Germanic, but a lot of it is actually Roman equipment that was looted and sacrificed. You can tell the differences via trends in hilt style, metallurgical quality of the steel, etc.

Here is a full length Cavalry Contus, a two-handed lance:



And the infantry variant, still a Contus but shorter:

[Remo]

Keep this going guys, what about the different Barbarian tribes?

The Burgundians are going to be released soon as a part of the Long Beards DLC, they have a lot of barbed weaponry. (Spears/Javelins etc.)

Is there anything to the Barbed weapons for them or is it just Ahistorical CA stuff?